I was thinking: You shouldn't force people to be generous, it should come from the heart. That's the Christian position. If I already give to the poor, why do I need to pay for Welfare type programs through compulsory taxes? (I know I HAVE to pay taxes, but is that tax right?)

Why don't people who want to give through government programs donate to them on their taxes, and those who don't, give to charities, or not give at all? If entitlements are really charitable, what is compulsory giving? It's a shakedown. I don't trust a charity to be really charitable if their preferred method of getting donations is a shakedown. The United States is already very charitable, liberal and conservative. We don't need these programs to operate this way. It would be like: "And remember to give to the United Way...or else."

On top of that, we now have paid employees, not just volunteers in charge of the distribution. And as budgets always go, they make sure to not leave a surplus so they can get a bigger budget next year. And to get rid of that surplus, you advertise for more beneficiaries. Sure, the people get fed, but now growing the entitlement recipients is also an employment program in the interest in the distributors. And a campaign issue to scare the recipients to reelect supporters.

It does not seem to be the most honest way to feed the poor.

What do liberals think?

One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.

1. Donations and helping the poor and whatnot are usually local, and often to like-minded folks, so, outcasts in society (think racism) and isolated areas don't have that network.

2. I think a big issue with Entitlements is that Americans feel entitled. Period. We deserve something because we want it. Imagine if a pizza place refused to take your order because you can only pay with a $100. We don't break those bills where I am, and people get pissed. Of course, I'm in the white suburbs, so, they're entitled.

At 5/7/2015 8:55:47 PM, Skynet wrote:I was thinking: You shouldn't force people to be generous, it should come from the heart. That's the Christian position. If I already give to the poor, why do I need to pay for Welfare type programs through compulsory taxes? (I know I HAVE to pay taxes, but is that tax right?)

Why don't people who want to give through government programs donate to them on their taxes, and those who don't, give to charities, or not give at all? If entitlements are really charitable, what is compulsory giving? It's a shakedown. I don't trust a charity to be really charitable if their preferred method of getting donations is a shakedown. The United States is already very charitable, liberal and conservative. We don't need these programs to operate this way. It would be like: "And remember to give to the United Way...or else."

On top of that, we now have paid employees, not just volunteers in charge of the distribution. And as budgets always go, they make sure to not leave a surplus so they can get a bigger budget next year. And to get rid of that surplus, you advertise for more beneficiaries. Sure, the people get fed, but now growing the entitlement recipients is also an employment program in the interest in the distributors. And a campaign issue to scare the recipients to reelect supporters.

It does not seem to be the most honest way to feed the poor.

What do liberals think?

Your first misconception is that all Christians actually give to the poor. That is not true, and even if it was, it's not regulated nor is it enough to actually help anyone. And the majority of Christians who give to "charity" are actually just donating money to churches, not the poor or underprivileged in society who actually need it. The reason why a portion of your taxes goes to these "entitlement" social programs is because they are crucial to sustaining social and economic stability in our society. Without them, the poor and elderly end up on the streets, and die. Do you know anything about "shantytowns" and poor houses? They existed during and before the Great Depression. Millions of poor Americans lived in these places. Before the establishment of social security, the elderly, with the exception of the wealthy, especially those without families, were homeless and dying. It was also very common for children to be homeless as well and working in factories to support their families where many of them were subjected to harsh working conditions and died as well. Similar cases also affected veterans who survived war and had no money, many of them ended up homeless as well as mentally ill from not being able to afford health insurance to pay for the psychological help they desperately needed after risking their lives.

Is this what conservatives want?Is this your idea of protecting the "status quo" ?

At 5/7/2015 9:01:09 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:I'm not liberal, but I want to address two things:

1. Donations and helping the poor and whatnot are usually local, and often to like-minded folks, so, outcasts in society (think racism) and isolated areas don't have that network.

2. I think a big issue with Entitlements is that Americans feel entitled. Period. We deserve something because we want it. Imagine if a pizza place refused to take your order because you can only pay with a $100. We don't break those bills where I am, and people get pissed. Of course, I'm in the white suburbs, so, they're entitled.

.... why would you ever refuse legal tender? "They are entitled to have their money used for the purchase of goods and services" doesn't strike me as an "entitlement" that sounds a lot like business as usual. As the day goes on, which is easier to count to close out the drawer? A 100, or 100 in smaller bills?

Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.http://www.debate.org...

Its part of what we all pay into the system for. If you consider it a "safety net" that you paid for but never use, it sounds a little short sighted to state you don't want to fund the safety net anymore. I don't like paying that much in taxes, but I know that if I fall on hard times, there is a system available to keep me from immediately being tossed out on the street.

I will not argue, however, that such a safety net does need reform in order to make fraud and gaming of that safety system harder and more than just a slap on the wrist when found.

From what I can tell of the "conservative" point of view, its not the safety net itself, its the people that are felt to be taking advantage of the system, or never paid into it that reap a benefit. That is hardly a case to penalize the hard working folk that then have to make honest use of the social aid systems they previously helped fund.

Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.http://www.debate.org...

At 5/7/2015 8:55:47 PM, Skynet wrote:I was thinking: You shouldn't force people to be generous, it should come from the heart. That's the Christian position. If I already give to the poor, why do I need to pay for Welfare type programs through compulsory taxes? (I know I HAVE to pay taxes, but is that tax right?)

Why don't people who want to give through government programs donate to them on their taxes, and those who don't, give to charities, or not give at all? If entitlements are really charitable, what is compulsory giving? It's a shakedown. I don't trust a charity to be really charitable if their preferred method of getting donations is a shakedown. The United States is already very charitable, liberal and conservative. We don't need these programs to operate this way. It would be like: "And remember to give to the United Way...or else."

On top of that, we now have paid employees, not just volunteers in charge of the distribution. And as budgets always go, they make sure to not leave a surplus so they can get a bigger budget next year. And to get rid of that surplus, you advertise for more beneficiaries. Sure, the people get fed, but now growing the entitlement recipients is also an employment program in the interest in the distributors. And a campaign issue to scare the recipients to reelect supporters.

It does not seem to be the most honest way to feed the poor.

What do liberals think?

Your first misconception is that all Christians actually give to the poor. That is not true, and even if it was, it's not regulated nor is it enough to actually help anyone. And the majority of Christians who give to "charity" are actually just donating money to churches, not the poor or underprivileged in society who actually need it. The reason why a portion of your taxes goes to these "entitlement" social programs is because they are crucial to sustaining social and economic stability in our society. Without them, the poor and elderly end up on the streets, and die. Do you know anything about "shantytowns" and poor houses? They existed during and before the Great Depression. Millions of poor Americans lived in these places. Before the establishment of social security, the elderly, with the exception of the wealthy, especially those without families, were homeless and dying. It was also very common for children to be homeless as well and working in factories to support their families where many of them were subjected to harsh working conditions and died as well. Similar cases also affected veterans who survived war and had no money, many of them ended up homeless as well as mentally ill from not being able to afford health insurance to pay for the psychological help they desperately needed after risking their lives.

Is this what conservatives want?Is this your idea of protecting the "status quo" ?

Empirical claims take empirical proof.

You shouldn't claim things like that without widespread proof that society really was the way you're describing it.

This is especially due to how before the Great Depression, scientific management brought about the Gilded Age where production was streamlined in contrast to the agrarian and rural lifestyles that preceded it. Industrialization greatly enhanced people's standards of living by enabling a lot more to be made at a lot more efficient effort.

The real problem wasn't poverty. It was the social transition between the Gilded Age and Great Depression in the form of consumerism. The rise of consumerism lead to information overload where people became increasingly irrational due to the raw chaos of population density. Marketing campaigns appealed to human emotions, and in turn, people became less and less civil, making rash decisions based on less and less perfect information. In turn, the stock market crash happened because people weren't thinking clearly. They bought stocks on margin, and the advent of credit cards lead to further reckless spending.

The reason we have welfare programs is to compensate for this information overload that leads to people falling through the cracks due to irrational decision making. Society refuses to discipline consumerism, so it compensates instead. On the other hand, this leads to split interpretations of charitable giving. Some give because they try to appear to be good people in society despite causing information overload in the first place. Others give because they feel bad for those who fall through the cracks.

Then, you have those who don't give because they believe consumerism needs to be disciplined, so charity only deals with a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. Others don't give because they relish in information overload and believe that it just sucks to be those who fall through the cracks.

At 5/7/2015 11:44:58 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:Its part of what we all pay into the system for. If you consider it a "safety net" that you paid for but never use, it sounds a little short sighted to state you don't want to fund the safety net anymore. I don't like paying that much in taxes, but I know that if I fall on hard times, there is a system available to keep me from immediately being tossed out on the street.

I will not argue, however, that such a safety net does need reform in order to make fraud and gaming of that safety system harder and more than just a slap on the wrist when found.

From what I can tell of the "conservative" point of view, its not the safety net itself, its the people that are felt to be taking advantage of the system, or never paid into it that reap a benefit. That is hardly a case to penalize the hard working folk that then have to make honest use of the social aid systems they previously helped fund.

All conservatives aren't the same.

Some conservatives oppose welfare because they don't believe it really deals with the problem. They believe that those who fall through the cracks are suffering due to the deconstruction of social values in society. They believe retributive, not redistributive, justice is in order. The real problem, from their perspective, is society refuses to hold those responsible who ruined others' lives.

Other conservatives believe in fate before free will, and they're cynics about fate. They believe that chaos is part of life, and compensating for chaos defies natural selection. Those who are unlucky to fall through the cracks should be condemned, not saved, in their perspective.

At 5/7/2015 8:55:47 PM, Skynet wrote:I was thinking: You shouldn't force people to be generous, it should come from the heart. That's the Christian position. If I already give to the poor, why do I need to pay for Welfare type programs through compulsory taxes? (I know I HAVE to pay taxes, but is that tax right?)

Why don't people who want to give through government programs donate to them on their taxes, and those who don't, give to charities, or not give at all? If entitlements are really charitable, what is compulsory giving? It's a shakedown. I don't trust a charity to be really charitable if their preferred method of getting donations is a shakedown. The United States is already very charitable, liberal and conservative. We don't need these programs to operate this way. It would be like: "And remember to give to the United Way...or else."

On top of that, we now have paid employees, not just volunteers in charge of the distribution. And as budgets always go, they make sure to not leave a surplus so they can get a bigger budget next year. And to get rid of that surplus, you advertise for more beneficiaries. Sure, the people get fed, but now growing the entitlement recipients is also an employment program in the interest in the distributors. And a campaign issue to scare the recipients to reelect supporters.

It does not seem to be the most honest way to feed the poor.

What do liberals think?

Your first misconception is that all Christians actually give to the poor. That is not true, and even if it was, it's not regulated nor is it enough to actually help anyone. And the majority of Christians who give to "charity" are actually just donating money to churches, not the poor or underprivileged in society who actually need it. The reason why a portion of your taxes goes to these "entitlement" social programs is because they are crucial to sustaining social and economic stability in our society. Without them, the poor and elderly end up on the streets, and die. Do you know anything about "shantytowns" and poor houses? They existed during and before the Great Depression. Millions of poor Americans lived in these places. Before the establishment of social security, the elderly, with the exception of the wealthy, especially those without families, were homeless and dying. It was also very common for children to be homeless as well and working in factories to support their families where many of them were subjected to harsh working conditions and died as well. Similar cases also affected veterans who survived war and had no money, many of them ended up homeless as well as mentally ill from not being able to afford health insurance to pay for the psychological help they desperately needed after risking their lives.

Is this what conservatives want?Is this your idea of protecting the "status quo" ?

Empirical claims take empirical proof.

You shouldn't claim things like that without widespread proof that society really was the way you're describing it.

Except society really was exactly the way I am describing it, and anyone with an 8th education in American history can verify this. I remember learning all of this in elementary school. And all of this is STILL observable today to some degree, especially homelessness among veterans.

This is especially due to how before the Great Depression, scientific management brought about the Gilded Age where production was streamlined in contrast to the agrarian and rural lifestyles that preceded it. Industrialization greatly enhanced people's standards of living by enabling a lot more to be made at a lot more efficient effort.

And a large portion of those working in factories were young children, especially of European immigrants, who were living in extreme poverty.

The real problem wasn't poverty. It was the social transition between the Gilded Age and Great Depression in the form of consumerism. The rise of consumerism lead to information overload where people became increasingly irrational due to the raw chaos of population density. Marketing campaigns appealed to human emotions, and in turn, people became less and less civil, making rash decisions based on less and less perfect information. In turn, the stock market crash happened because people weren't thinking clearly. They bought stocks on margin, and the advent of credit cards lead to further reckless spending.

The reason we have welfare programs is to compensate for this information overload that leads to people falling through the cracks due to irrational decision making. Society refuses to discipline consumerism, so it compensates instead. On the other hand, this leads to split interpretations of charitable giving. Some give because they try to appear to be good people in society despite causing information overload in the first place. Others give because they feel bad for those who fall through the cracks.

Then, you have those who don't give because they believe consumerism needs to be disciplined, so charity only deals with a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. Others don't give because they relish in information overload and believe that it just sucks to be those who fall through the cracks.

So exactly how will taking away all of these social programs benefit those who fall through these cracks? They have no money, they can no longer support themselves or their families until they have money to stand on their feet and increase their quality of life again. That is the issue I was addressing. Charity is not regulated, and does not do enough to help the poor. We shouldn't live in a society where the only people with a safety net are those who can afford it, but that's just my view on the issue.

At 5/7/2015 8:55:47 PM, Skynet wrote:I was thinking: You shouldn't force people to be generous, it should come from the heart. That's the Christian position. If I already give to the poor, why do I need to pay for Welfare type programs through compulsory taxes? (I know I HAVE to pay taxes, but is that tax right?)

You are not exactly being generous, as the welfare also benefits you. Welfare taxing is often agreed democraticly by the majority of a parlament and is often on a country's constitution. So it is something maybe you or your fathers agreed to do (or the political parties they supported, at least), and so you and your fathers have been getting benefits of it through all your life.

Why don't people who want to give through government programs donate to them on their taxes, and those who don't, give to charities, or not give at all?

Charities are a different matter than welfare, and have also a different objective. Charity is a solidary "gift" to a particular cause, welfare is not solidary, since you are benefiting from it, and it is also not given "to a particular cause" but to mantain your own society needs, it serves to ensure society is educated (public education), healthy (public healthcare), secure (financing the police departments, the military, the social services that prevent poverty and thus prevent the proliferation of desperate people capable of committing crimes, etc.). Without taxing, you wouldn't be able to live on society, as there wouldn't be any real cooperation between citizens, only competence. You would need to live isolated, and in constant suspicion of other citizens. The worst part of it, is that even if you are wealthy and confident that you can live like that, probably your little children will not be able to live in such a world, specialy without your protection (ie, if you die).

If entitlements are really charitable, what is compulsory giving? It's a shakedown. I don't trust a charity to be really charitable if their preferred method of getting donations is a shakedown. The United States is already very charitable, liberal and conservative. We don't need these programs to operate this way. It would be like: "And remember to give to the United Way...or else."

On top of that, we now have paid employees, not just volunteers in charge of the distribution. And as budgets always go, they make sure to not leave a surplus so they can get a bigger budget next year. And to get rid of that surplus, you advertise for more beneficiaries. Sure, the people get fed, but now growing the entitlement recipients is also an employment program in the interest in the distributors. And a campaign issue to scare the recipients to reelect supporters.

At 5/7/2015 8:55:47 PM, Skynet wrote:I was thinking: You shouldn't force people to be generous, it should come from the heart. That's the Christian position. If I already give to the poor, why do I need to pay for Welfare type programs through compulsory taxes? (I know I HAVE to pay taxes, but is that tax right?)

You are not exactly being generous, as the welfare also benefits you. Welfare taxing is often agreed democraticly by the majority of a parlament and is often on a country's constitution. So it is something maybe you or your fathers agreed to do (or the political parties they supported, at least), and so you and your fathers have been getting benefits of it through all your life.

Why don't people who want to give through government programs donate to them on their taxes, and those who don't, give to charities, or not give at all?

Charities are a different matter than welfare, and have also a different objective. Charity is a solidary "gift" to a particular cause, welfare is not solidary, since you are benefiting from it, and it is also not given "to a particular cause" but to mantain your own society needs, it serves to ensure society is educated (public education), healthy (public healthcare), secure (financing the police departments, the military, the social services that prevent poverty and thus prevent the proliferation of desperate people capable of committing crimes, etc.). Without taxing, you wouldn't be able to live on society, as there wouldn't be any real cooperation between citizens, only competence. You would need to live isolated, and in constant suspicion of other citizens. The worst part of it, is that even if you are wealthy and confident that you can live like that, probably your little children will not be able to live in such a world, specialy without your protection (ie, if you die).

If entitlements are really charitable, what is compulsory giving? It's a shakedown. I don't trust a charity to be really charitable if their preferred method of getting donations is a shakedown. The United States is already very charitable, liberal and conservative. We don't need these programs to operate this way. It would be like: "And remember to give to the United Way...or else."

On top of that, we now have paid employees, not just volunteers in charge of the distribution. And as budgets always go, they make sure to not leave a surplus so they can get a bigger budget next year. And to get rid of that surplus, you advertise for more beneficiaries. Sure, the people get fed, but now growing the entitlement recipients is also an employment program in the interest in the distributors. And a campaign issue to scare the recipients to reelect supporters.

At 5/7/2015 8:55:47 PM, Skynet wrote:I was thinking: You shouldn't force people to be generous, it should come from the heart. That's the Christian position. If I already give to the poor, why do I need to pay for Welfare type programs through compulsory taxes? (I know I HAVE to pay taxes, but is that tax right?)

Why don't people who want to give through government programs donate to them on their taxes, and those who don't, give to charities, or not give at all? If entitlements are really charitable, what is compulsory giving? It's a shakedown. I don't trust a charity to be really charitable if their preferred method of getting donations is a shakedown. The United States is already very charitable, liberal and conservative. We don't need these programs to operate this way. It would be like: "And remember to give to the United Way...or else."

On top of that, we now have paid employees, not just volunteers in charge of the distribution. And as budgets always go, they make sure to not leave a surplus so they can get a bigger budget next year. And to get rid of that surplus, you advertise for more beneficiaries. Sure, the people get fed, but now growing the entitlement recipients is also an employment program in the interest in the distributors. And a campaign issue to scare the recipients to reelect supporters.

It does not seem to be the most honest way to feed the poor.

What do liberals think?

Your first misconception is that all Christians actually give to the poor. That is not true, and even if it was, it's not regulated nor is it enough to actually help anyone. And the majority of Christians who give to "charity" are actually just donating money to churches, not the poor or underprivileged in society who actually need it. The reason why a portion of your taxes goes to these "entitlement" social programs is because they are crucial to sustaining social and economic stability in our society. Without them, the poor and elderly end up on the streets, and die. Do you know anything about "shantytowns" and poor houses? They existed during and before the Great Depression. Millions of poor Americans lived in these places. Before the establishment of social security, the elderly, with the exception of the wealthy, especially those without families, were homeless and dying. It was also very common for children to be homeless as well and working in factories to support their families where many of them were subjected to harsh working conditions and died as well. Similar cases also affected veterans who survived war and had no money, many of them ended up homeless as well as mentally ill from not being able to afford health insurance to pay for the psychological help they desperately needed after risking their lives.

Is this what conservatives want?Is this your idea of protecting the "status quo" ?

Empirical claims take empirical proof.

You shouldn't claim things like that without widespread proof that society really was the way you're describing it.

Except society really was exactly the way I am describing it, and anyone with an 8th education in American history can verify this. I remember learning all of this in elementary school. And all of this is STILL observable today to some degree, especially homelessness among veterans.

This is especially due to how before the Great Depression, scientific management brought about the Gilded Age where production was streamlined in contrast to the agrarian and rural lifestyles that preceded it. Industrialization greatly enhanced people's standards of living by enabling a lot more to be made at a lot more efficient effort.

And a large portion of those working in factories were young children, especially of European immigrants, who were living in extreme poverty.

The real problem wasn't poverty. It was the social transition between the Gilded Age and Great Depression in the form of consumerism. The rise of consumerism lead to information overload where people became increasingly irrational due to the raw chaos of population density. Marketing campaigns appealed to human emotions, and in turn, people became less and less civil, making rash decisions based on less and less perfect information. In turn, the stock market crash happened because people weren't thinking clearly. They bought stocks on margin, and the advent of credit cards lead to further reckless spending.

The reason we have welfare programs is to compensate for this information overload that leads to people falling through the cracks due to irrational decision making. Society refuses to discipline consumerism, so it compensates instead. On the other hand, this leads to split interpretations of charitable giving. Some give because they try to appear to be good people in society despite causing information overload in the first place. Others give because they feel bad for those who fall through the cracks.

Then, you have those who don't give because they believe consumerism needs to be disciplined, so charity only deals with a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. Others don't give because they relish in information overload and believe that it just sucks to be those who fall through the cracks.

So exactly how will taking away all of these social programs benefit those who fall through these cracks? They have no money, they can no longer support themselves or their families until they have money to stand on their feet and increase their quality of life again. That is the issue I was addressing. Charity is not regulated, and does not do enough to help the poor. We shouldn't live in a society where the only people with a safety net are those who can afford it, but that's just my view on the issue.

Anyone with an 8th grade education knows how politicized the public education system is. In fact, there are books out there which show facts that are deliberately left out for the sake of political correctness:

The problem with the welfare system is it addresses a symptom to the problem, not the problem itself. The reason they have no money is because of a destruction of social values. We just put welfare systems in place because we're not willing to reconstruct what was destroyed. You ignored everything I said about consumerism encouraging irrational decisions.

At 5/7/2015 9:01:09 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:I'm not liberal, but I want to address two things:

1. Donations and helping the poor and whatnot are usually local, and often to like-minded folks, so, outcasts in society (think racism) and isolated areas don't have that network.

2. I think a big issue with Entitlements is that Americans feel entitled. Period. We deserve something because we want it. Imagine if a pizza place refused to take your order because you can only pay with a $100. We don't break those bills where I am, and people get pissed. Of course, I'm in the white suburbs, so, they're entitled.

.... why would you ever refuse legal tender? "They are entitled to have their money used for the purchase of goods and services" doesn't strike me as an "entitlement" that sounds a lot like business as usual. As the day goes on, which is easier to count to close out the drawer? A 100, or 100 in smaller bills?

Safety.If people know that drivers don't carry more than $20, they are less likely to be robbed on the road.If people know that the store drops money in the safe, the store is less likely to be robbed.

The entitlement is their response after the explanation.It may be a bad example. How about when banks have certain criteria for having free checking?

At 5/7/2015 8:55:47 PM, Skynet wrote:I was thinking: You shouldn't force people to be generous, it should come from the heart. That's the Christian position. If I already give to the poor, why do I need to pay for Welfare type programs through compulsory taxes? (I know I HAVE to pay taxes, but is that tax right?)

Why don't people who want to give through government programs donate to them on their taxes, and those who don't, give to charities, or not give at all? If entitlements are really charitable, what is compulsory giving? It's a shakedown. I don't trust a charity to be really charitable if their preferred method of getting donations is a shakedown. The United States is already very charitable, liberal and conservative. We don't need these programs to operate this way. It would be like: "And remember to give to the United Way...or else."

On top of that, we now have paid employees, not just volunteers in charge of the distribution. And as budgets always go, they make sure to not leave a surplus so they can get a bigger budget next year. And to get rid of that surplus, you advertise for more beneficiaries. Sure, the people get fed, but now growing the entitlement recipients is also an employment program in the interest in the distributors. And a campaign issue to scare the recipients to reelect supporters.

It does not seem to be the most honest way to feed the poor.

What do liberals think?

Once upon a time in the U.S.A. a local board decided who got the benefits.As someone else pointed out, if you went to the wrong church, or were too 'ethnic', no roof for you. Race not an issue in our part of the county.

I had Amish families on my welfare caseload.They are known for 'helping their own'.This one family had a severely disabled child - cerebral palsy as I recall, not sure, doesn't matter.They had to make regular trips to a children's hospital two hours away, lots of other stuff as well.We talked, and I asked about the Amish prohibition against going to the government for help. He said the church fathers told him at one point - 'We've done all we can. Apply for welfare.'I let him do most of the talking.I can still remember him saying 'I didn't belong to the right family. Some of them never get turned down for help.'

I for one believe that churches and civic organizations have abdicated too much charity to the government.It detracts from their supposed mission.Still..............

The thing about Entitlements for the poor ,is what about the entitlements for the upper-middle class? Like some guy who thinks he is entitled to his salary just because he shows up for work on time and then does nothing but polish a chair with his butt for 8 hours?Things would be different 100 years ago, but now most of the work is done by machines or foreigners.So just what do you libertarians want us to do? Adopt a new policy where if a guy has a job and can buy food with his earned money, tha'ts great, if not he should starve to death?

At 5/7/2015 8:55:47 PM, Skynet wrote:I was thinking: You shouldn't force people to be generous, it should come from the heart. That's the Christian position. If I already give to the poor, why do I need to pay for Welfare type programs through compulsory taxes? (I know I HAVE to pay taxes, but is that tax right?)

You are not exactly being generous, as the welfare also benefits you. Welfare taxing is often agreed democraticly by the majority of a parlament and is often on a country's constitution. So it is something maybe you or your fathers agreed to do (or the political parties they supported, at least), and so you and your fathers have been getting benefits of it through all your life.

Why don't people who want to give through government programs donate to them on their taxes, and those who don't, give to charities, or not give at all?

Charities are a different matter than welfare, and have also a different objective. Charity is a solidary "gift" to a particular cause, welfare is not solidary, since you are benefiting from it, and it is also not given "to a particular cause" but to mantain your own society needs, it serves to ensure society is educated (public education), healthy (public healthcare), secure (financing the police departments, the military, the social services that prevent poverty and thus prevent the proliferation of desperate people capable of committing crimes, etc.). Without taxing, you wouldn't be able to live on society, as there wouldn't be any real cooperation between citizens, only competence. You would need to live isolated, and in constant suspicion of other citizens. The worst part of it, is that even if you are wealthy and confident that you can live like that, probably your little children will not be able to live in such a world, specialy without your protection (ie, if you die).

If entitlements are really charitable, what is compulsory giving? It's a shakedown. I don't trust a charity to be really charitable if their preferred method of getting donations is a shakedown. The United States is already very charitable, liberal and conservative. We don't need these programs to operate this way. It would be like: "And remember to give to the United Way...or else."

On top of that, we now have paid employees, not just volunteers in charge of the distribution. And as budgets always go, they make sure to not leave a surplus so they can get a bigger budget next year. And to get rid of that surplus, you advertise for more beneficiaries. Sure, the people get fed, but now growing the entitlement recipients is also an employment program in the interest in the distributors. And a campaign issue to scare the recipients to reelect supporters.

At 5/7/2015 9:01:09 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:I'm not liberal, but I want to address two things:

1. Donations and helping the poor and whatnot are usually local, and often to like-minded folks, so, outcasts in society (think racism) and isolated areas don't have that network.

2. I think a big issue with Entitlements is that Americans feel entitled. Period. We deserve something because we want it. Imagine if a pizza place refused to take your order because you can only pay with a $100. We don't break those bills where I am, and people get pissed. Of course, I'm in the white suburbs, so, they're entitled.

.... why would you ever refuse legal tender? "They are entitled to have their money used for the purchase of goods and services" doesn't strike me as an "entitlement" that sounds a lot like business as usual. As the day goes on, which is easier to count to close out the drawer? A 100, or 100 in smaller bills?

Safety.If people know that drivers don't carry more than $20, they are less likely to be robbed on the road.If people know that the store drops money in the safe, the store is less likely to be robbed.

This is why I could never be a criminal, I don't think knocking off a Subway at 2pm is worth it, I would be that dude that finds a way in when the safe is emptied or something.

The entitlement is their response after the explanation.It may be a bad example. How about when banks have certain criteria for having free checking?

Oi, banking. Yeah, there is a lot of (what seems to me) to be shady stuff, but at the same time, I can see some forms of entitlement, too.

Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.http://www.debate.org...

At 5/7/2015 8:55:47 PM, Skynet wrote:I was thinking: You shouldn't force people to be generous, it should come from the heart. That's the Christian position. If I already give to the poor, why do I need to pay for Welfare type programs through compulsory taxes? (I know I HAVE to pay taxes, but is that tax right?)

Why don't people who want to give through government programs donate to them on their taxes, and those who don't, give to charities, or not give at all? If entitlements are really charitable, what is compulsory giving? It's a shakedown. I don't trust a charity to be really charitable if their preferred method of getting donations is a shakedown. The United States is already very charitable, liberal and conservative. We don't need these programs to operate this way. It would be like: "And remember to give to the United Way...or else."

On top of that, we now have paid employees, not just volunteers in charge of the distribution. And as budgets always go, they make sure to not leave a surplus so they can get a bigger budget next year. And to get rid of that surplus, you advertise for more beneficiaries. Sure, the people get fed, but now growing the entitlement recipients is also an employment program in the interest in the distributors. And a campaign issue to scare the recipients to reelect supporters.

It does not seem to be the most honest way to feed the poor.

What do liberals think?

When it comes to welfare you can demonstrate that it does harm. When we begun the war on poverty, poverty rates had been declining since we instituted a basic safety net in the 30s. It wasn't until Johnson expanded them significantly that we saw a stable trend, and in some measurements an increase, in poverty. But I don't really think you can argue that welfare can be fully abolished.

(1) First, the unemployment rate has been hypothesized to be cyclical. In other words, 1/4 or even 1/3 of people will become unemployed at the bottom of a cycle for pretty much no reason. If we have no safety net then these people are harmed.

(2) During recessions redistribution can be beneficial -- and some degree of redistribution works always. The best thing for poverty reduction is economic growth. India's economic growth policies have taken 200 million people out of poverty, and as world markets globalism world poverty has decreased. This is what is needed for poverty reduction: a) growth, b) with the increased revenue from growth, use it on redistribution, c) make sure to target those who need it and societies (e.g. isolated tribes, not a big issue in the US though) who can't benefit from growth. But, as the poverty line is based on a bare minimum, people who are above it may not be comfortable. And welfare won't help them. What I am saying is that growth should always be prioritized, because it is the best way to help the poor, but small amounts of redistribution are necessary as well.

(3) Of course, it can call dependency. The Swedish welfare system has caused entire generations to be dependent (http://econweb.ucsd.edu...). But welfare reforms can deal with it. I see no reason to harm millions of poor people -- who are poor due to random, uncontrollable, events -- because it can cause dependency for some people. But yes, some degree of reform is necessary to help the poor. The 1990s reform acts were good, but they didn't go far enough.

(4) Private charity cannot replace welfare. IT is impossible. Your assumption is that if we get rid of welfare more people would donate -- that is what must happen if we abolish welfare. But there is no reason that would happen. Plus, most charity is very short term and locally focused. So it would not solve the problem on a national level.

This is why I could never be a criminal, I don't think knocking off a Subway at 2pm is worth it, I would be that dude that finds a way in when the safe is emptied or something.

Think of it this way:You order a pizza for $15, and say you need change for $100. You then rob the pizza guy, for his $85 (maybe more if he has other cash on him).

And, that is the best way to do it (rob at close), but the doors are locked, so it is more difficult and, thus, more risky.

The entitlement is their response after the explanation.It may be a bad example. How about when banks have certain criteria for having free checking?

Oi, banking. Yeah, there is a lot of (what seems to me) to be shady stuff, but at the same time, I can see some forms of entitlement, too.

Regardless what you think of banks, why should you not have to pay to have a business (bank) have staff available to help you? Because you have your money there? Banks don't make money off your $50 balance.Isn't it odd that, up until ten years ago, almost every bank had a free personal checking account, yet, business checking accounts cost money to even have? This, could be more of a local thing, though.

Other forms of entitlement:trolling - hurting/enraging others for your enjoyment (i.e. you are entitled to your enjoyment regardless of the costs)unethical behavior - for example, a delivery driver unnecessarily taking a double, which is stealing from other drivers, or a driver saying he needs one more run to make his goalonline behavior - for example, YouTube comments about "it's been two weeks, post a video" (as if their existence is to entertain the user), or even DDO when mods crack down on so-called "freedom of speech".

and, of course, other legal entitlements, like schools (think of MY children and pay more taxes), social security, and even police (it's like they're not even trying to find my stolen bicycle)

Bottom line is Americans are spoiled, and we all feel entitled, and it is a serious problem, IMO.

I have noticed that the people who complain about the coercion involved in some of their money going to the poor always fail to complain about how some of their coerced money also goes to the not-at-all-poor.

That is, until someone brings it up as I just did...

"If you say you pray to God, that makes you normal. But if you say you pray to God through your hair dryer, you are clearly a lunatic. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive."
-Sam Harris

At 5/7/2015 8:55:47 PM, Skynet wrote:I was thinking: You shouldn't force people to be generous, it should come from the heart. That's the Christian position. If I already give to the poor, why do I need to pay for Welfare type programs through compulsory taxes? (I know I HAVE to pay taxes, but is that tax right?)

Wrong. The Christian position doesn't take into account one's volitional desire to give charitably. Christians are bound to help those in need, whether they desire to or not.

This is why I could never be a criminal, I don't think knocking off a Subway at 2pm is worth it, I would be that dude that finds a way in when the safe is emptied or something.

Think of it this way:You order a pizza for $15, and say you need change for $100. You then rob the pizza guy, for his $85 (maybe more if he has other cash on him).

And, that is the best way to do it (rob at close), but the doors are locked, so it is more difficult and, thus, more risky.

The entitlement is their response after the explanation.It may be a bad example. How about when banks have certain criteria for having free checking?

Oi, banking. Yeah, there is a lot of (what seems to me) to be shady stuff, but at the same time, I can see some forms of entitlement, too.

Regardless what you think of banks, why should you not have to pay to have a business (bank) have staff available to help you? Because you have your money there? Banks don't make money off your $50 balance.

Not as a whole. I am however purchasing my checks from them, which IIRC has some degree of "this is what you paid for" built into it.

Isn't it odd that, up until ten years ago, almost every bank had a free personal checking account, yet, business checking accounts cost money to even have? This, could be more of a local thing, though.

Other forms of entitlement:trolling - hurting/enraging others for your enjoyment (i.e. you are entitled to your enjoyment regardless of the costs)

... I am not familiar with this one. That just sounds in general like being entitled to be a d!ck.

unethical behavior - for example, a delivery driver unnecessarily taking a double, which is stealing from other drivers, or a driver saying he needs one more run to make his goal

Why are the other driver's entitled to the work share, exactly?

online behavior - for example, YouTube comments about "it's been two weeks, post a video" (as if their existence is to entertain the user), or even DDO when mods crack down on so-called "freedom of speech".

THAT, my friend is indeed true entitlement, on this I can agree, provided the poster in question states that is indeed what they will do for their fans, if any.

and, of course, other legal entitlements, like schools (think of MY children and pay more taxes), social security, and even police (it's like they're not even trying to find my stolen bicycle)

Bottom line is Americans are spoiled, and we all feel entitled, and it is a serious problem, IMO.

I think this is primarily because we don't know exactly how much our taxes can actually buy vs DO buy. The average citizen doesn't care to review budgetary costs, and exactly what that means on a per citizen hourly rate for each service. But, yeah, spoiled.

Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.http://www.debate.org...

At 5/7/2015 8:55:47 PM, Skynet wrote:I was thinking: You shouldn't force people to be generous, it should come from the heart. That's the Christian position. If I already give to the poor, why do I need to pay for Welfare type programs through compulsory taxes? (I know I HAVE to pay taxes, but is that tax right?)

Why don't people who want to give through government programs donate to them on their taxes, and those who don't, give to charities, or not give at all? If entitlements are really charitable, what is compulsory giving? It's a shakedown. I don't trust a charity to be really charitable if their preferred method of getting donations is a shakedown. The United States is already very charitable, liberal and conservative. We don't need these programs to operate this way. It would be like: "And remember to give to the United Way...or else."

On top of that, we now have paid employees, not just volunteers in charge of the distribution. And as budgets always go, they make sure to not leave a surplus so they can get a bigger budget next year. And to get rid of that surplus, you advertise for more beneficiaries. Sure, the people get fed, but now growing the entitlement recipients is also an employment program in the interest in the distributors. And a campaign issue to scare the recipients to reelect supporters.

It does not seem to be the most honest way to feed the poor.

What do liberals think?

Your first misconception is that all Christians actually give to the poor.

That is not my misconception. I said "That's the Christian position." Not "That's what all Christians do."

That is not true, and even if it was, it's not regulated nor is it enough to actually help anyone. And the majority of Christians who give to "charity" are actually just donating money to churches, not the poor or underprivileged in society who actually need it.

Non-profits have some regulations, but not heavy ones. Saying it is not enough to help anyone is a very broad statement, and not one that I have seen in action. Did you know that most hospitals are, or started life as Christian ministries in the US? At my church, there are dozens of departments, many running charitable events multiple times a year. Most of the money goes straight to the cause, and the labor is done by volunteers. There are rooms of food and clothing, and other supplies we give to the poor.

The reason why a portion of your taxes goes to these "entitlement" social programs is because they are crucial to sustaining social and economic stability in our society. Without them, the poor and elderly end up on the streets, and die. Do you know anything about "shantytowns" and poor houses? They existed during and before the Great Depression. Millions of poor Americans lived in these places.

Before the establishment of social security, the elderly, with the exception of the wealthy, especially those without families, were homeless and dying. It was also very common for children to be homeless as well and working in factories to support their families where many of them were subjected to harsh working conditions and died as well. Similar cases also affected veterans who survived war and had no money, many of them ended up homeless as well as mentally ill from not being able to afford health insurance to pay for the psychological help they desperately needed after risking their lives.

Um, despite all of the programs, all of those are still big issues in this country besides child labor. I know of encampments of homeless people right in my town. Veterans still roam the street, with no mental help, and unfortunately, the mentally ill don't usually seek help themselves, because, well, they're mentally ill. People live in motels and die from carbon monoxide poisoning from living in storage buildings with kerosene space heaters. The government programs can't eliminate these problems. The poor need to be sought out by caring individuals. Not the Department of Reallocation.

Is this what conservatives want?Is this your idea of protecting the "status quo" ?

One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.

At 5/7/2015 11:44:58 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:Its part of what we all pay into the system for. If you consider it a "safety net" that you paid for but never use, it sounds a little short sighted to state you don't want to fund the safety net anymore. I don't like paying that much in taxes, but I know that if I fall on hard times, there is a system available to keep me from immediately being tossed out on the street.

I will not argue, however, that such a safety net does need reform in order to make fraud and gaming of that safety system harder and more than just a slap on the wrist when found.

From what I can tell of the "conservative" point of view, its not the safety net itself, its the people that are felt to be taking advantage of the system, or never paid into it that reap a benefit. That is hardly a case to penalize the hard working folk that then have to make honest use of the social aid systems they previously helped fund.

Correct, we don't want to see people on the street, we just see corruption with the current system, lots of our money going to it, and the poor are still poor.

One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.

At 5/7/2015 8:55:47 PM, Skynet wrote:I was thinking: You shouldn't force people to be generous, it should come from the heart. That's the Christian position. If I already give to the poor, why do I need to pay for Welfare type programs through compulsory taxes? (I know I HAVE to pay taxes, but is that tax right?)

You are not exactly being generous, as the welfare also benefits you. Welfare taxing is often agreed democraticly by the majority of a parlament and is often on a country's constitution. So it is something maybe you or your fathers agreed to do (or the political parties they supported, at least), and so you and your fathers have been getting benefits of it through all your life.

Why don't people who want to give through government programs donate to them on their taxes, and those who don't, give to charities, or not give at all?

Charities are a different matter than welfare, and have also a different objective. Charity is a solidary "gift" to a particular cause, welfare is not solidary, since you are benefiting from it, and it is also not given "to a particular cause" but to mantain your own society needs, it serves to ensure society is educated (public education), healthy (public healthcare), secure (financing the police departments, the military, the social services that prevent poverty and thus prevent the proliferation of desperate people capable of committing crimes, etc.). Without taxing, you wouldn't be able to live on society, as there wouldn't be any real cooperation between citizens, only competence. You would need to live isolated, and in constant suspicion of other citizens. The worst part of it, is that even if you are wealthy and confident that you can live like that, probably your little children will not be able to live in such a world, specialy without your protection (ie, if you die).

If entitlements are really charitable, what is compulsory giving? It's a shakedown. I don't trust a charity to be really charitable if their preferred method of getting donations is a shakedown. The United States is already very charitable, liberal and conservative. We don't need these programs to operate this way. It would be like: "And remember to give to the United Way...or else."

On top of that, we now have paid employees, not just volunteers in charge of the distribution. And as budgets always go, they make sure to not leave a surplus so they can get a bigger budget next year. And to get rid of that surplus, you advertise for more beneficiaries. Sure, the people get fed, but now growing the entitlement recipients is also an employment program in the interest in the distributors. And a campaign issue to scare the recipients to reelect supporters.

It does not seem to be the most honest way to feed the poor.

What do liberals think?

In the US, welfare was not part of the founding. It was mainly created in the early 1900's through present day. Also, our system was not intended to provide a minimum level of support for the population, and anything we worked for was gravy on top of that. I'm not arguing against taxation, or civil engineering, public roads, etc. I believe the system we have of supporting the poor through the government is corrupt and takes too much with not enough benefit to most of those who need help.

One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.

At 5/7/2015 8:55:47 PM, Skynet wrote:I was thinking: You shouldn't force people to be generous, it should come from the heart. That's the Christian position. If I already give to the poor, why do I need to pay for Welfare type programs through compulsory taxes? (I know I HAVE to pay taxes, but is that tax right?)

Why don't people who want to give through government programs donate to them on their taxes, and those who don't, give to charities, or not give at all? If entitlements are really charitable, what is compulsory giving? It's a shakedown. I don't trust a charity to be really charitable if their preferred method of getting donations is a shakedown. The United States is already very charitable, liberal and conservative. We don't need these programs to operate this way. It would be like: "And remember to give to the United Way...or else."

On top of that, we now have paid employees, not just volunteers in charge of the distribution. And as budgets always go, they make sure to not leave a surplus so they can get a bigger budget next year. And to get rid of that surplus, you advertise for more beneficiaries. Sure, the people get fed, but now growing the entitlement recipients is also an employment program in the interest in the distributors. And a campaign issue to scare the recipients to reelect supporters.

It does not seem to be the most honest way to feed the poor.

What do liberals think?

Once upon a time in the U.S.A. a local board decided who got the benefits.As someone else pointed out, if you went to the wrong church, or were too 'ethnic', no roof for you. Race not an issue in our part of the county.

I had Amish families on my welfare caseload.They are known for 'helping their own'.This one family had a severely disabled child - cerebral palsy as I recall, not sure, doesn't matter.They had to make regular trips to a children's hospital two hours away, lots of other stuff as well.We talked, and I asked about the Amish prohibition against going to the government for help. He said the church fathers told him at one point - 'We've done all we can. Apply for welfare.'I let him do most of the talking.I can still remember him saying 'I didn't belong to the right family. Some of them never get turned down for help.'

I for one believe that churches and civic organizations have abdicated too much charity to the government.It detracts from their supposed mission.Still..............

Well stink on those particular Amish. Two wrongs don't make a right. The current system has less consequential oversight than private charities. If we find out a charity is crooked, we can stop giving.

One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.

At 5/8/2015 12:00:10 PM, xus00HAY wrote:The thing about Entitlements for the poor ,is what about the entitlements for the upper-middle class? Like some guy who thinks he is entitled to his salary just because he shows up for work on time and then does nothing but polish a chair with his butt for 8 hours?Things would be different 100 years ago, but now most of the work is done by machines or foreigners.So just what do you libertarians want us to do? Adopt a new policy where if a guy has a job and can buy food with his earned money, tha'ts great, if not he should starve to death?

Uh, no. Sounds like you have a sour view of people who work. Giving should be voluntary. If you don't think anyone will give, you may have a problem.Society can't hold up people who do not work indefinitely. Everyone needs to make an effort to support themselves. If they can't, then we'll deal with our own neighbors.

One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.

Well stink on those particular Amish. Two wrongs don't make a right. The current system has less consequential oversight than private charities. If we find out a charity is crooked, we can stop giving.

From previous:

I believe the system we have of supporting the poor through the government is corrupt and takes too much with not enough benefit to most of those who need help.

You are making some good points, but you have some of it wrong.You would have to argue that all government programs and spending is corrupt, as welfare is not more than the others.The programs and spending has the authority and approval of both parties, and representative politicians and citizens as well.The waste and misallocation is intentional, part of the system called government, not unique in any way to welfare or social services.You may agree to this, it is not clear.

The benefit of this misspent money is loafers and malingers at one level, but Business and Capitalists on another level. Providing welfare benefits is Big Business. Those who get the welfare Money (not benefits, but money) contribute heavily to the machinery that cranks it out, private organizations as well as politicians.It is not in the best interest of those in power and control to make changes, or 'Kill the goose laying the golden eggs', as they say.

I hope you are deluded into thinking one or the other political party is the problem, or only certain Departments of government are affected.

I do not think it is clear to most people what is included in Entitlements:

The kind of government program that provides individuals with personal financial benefits (or sometimes special government-provided goods or services) to which an indefinite (but usually rather large) number of potential beneficiaries have a legal right (enforceable in court, if necessary) whenever they meet eligibility conditions that are specified by the standing law that authorizes the program. The beneficiaries of entitlement programs are normally individual citizens or residents, but sometimes organizations such as business corporations, local governments, or even political parties may have similar special "entitlements" under certain programs.

The most important examples of entitlement programs at the federal level in the United States would includeSocial Security,Medicare, andMedicaid,most Veterans' Administration programs,federal employee (includes all active duty military) andmilitary retirement plans,unemployment compensation,food stamps, andagricultural price support programs.https://www.auburn.edu...

So when you read about the high cost of entitlements, do not forget it includes all Federal Government employees and retirees, including military, as well as Social Security and Medicare.

This is not justification for anything.I just think the terms have not been defined.

At 5/7/2015 8:55:47 PM, Skynet wrote:I was thinking: You shouldn't force people to be generous, it should come from the heart. That's the Christian position. If I already give to the poor, why do I need to pay for Welfare type programs through compulsory taxes? (I know I HAVE to pay taxes, but is that tax right?)

You are not exactly being generous, as the welfare also benefits you. Welfare taxing is often agreed democraticly by the majority of a parlament and is often on a country's constitution. So it is something maybe you or your fathers agreed to do (or the political parties they supported, at least), and so you and your fathers have been getting benefits of it through all your life.

Why don't people who want to give through government programs donate to them on their taxes, and those who don't, give to charities, or not give at all?

Charities are a different matter than welfare, and have also a different objective. Charity is a solidary "gift" to a particular cause, welfare is not solidary, since you are benefiting from it, and it is also not given "to a particular cause" but to mantain your own society needs, it serves to ensure society is educated (public education), healthy (public healthcare), secure (financing the police departments, the military, the social services that prevent poverty and thus prevent the proliferation of desperate people capable of committing crimes, etc.). Without taxing, you wouldn't be able to live on society, as there wouldn't be any real cooperation between citizens, only competence. You would need to live isolated, and in constant suspicion of other citizens. The worst part of it, is that even if you are wealthy and confident that you can live like that, probably your little children will not be able to live in such a world, specialy without your protection (ie, if you die).

If entitlements are really charitable, what is compulsory giving? It's a shakedown. I don't trust a charity to be really charitable if their preferred method of getting donations is a shakedown. The United States is already very charitable, liberal and conservative. We don't need these programs to operate this way. It would be like: "And remember to give to the United Way...or else."

On top of that, we now have paid employees, not just volunteers in charge of the distribution. And as budgets always go, they make sure to not leave a surplus so they can get a bigger budget next year. And to get rid of that surplus, you advertise for more beneficiaries. Sure, the people get fed, but now growing the entitlement recipients is also an employment program in the interest in the distributors. And a campaign issue to scare the recipients to reelect supporters.

It does not seem to be the most honest way to feed the poor.

What do liberals think?

In the US, welfare was not part of the founding. It was mainly created in the early 1900's through present day. Also, our system was not intended to provide a minimum level of support for the population, and anything we worked for was gravy on top of that. I'm not arguing against taxation, or civil engineering, public roads, etc. I believe the system we have of supporting the poor through the government is corrupt and takes too much with not enough benefit to most of those who need help.

But that would be a problem with the corrupted version of the system, not with welfare in general, right? Or are you saying that poor people need to be stripped off social help?